Ridiculous... F1 "row"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8141428.stm

What is F1 good for again? Somebody remind me...

absoloutley nothing! I'm excited to see where Indy goes since Tony George stepped down. hopefully it goes back to what CART used to be

I am hoping the new Indy Car rules allow for multiple engine/chassis combinations. The current rules package is boring.

There is talk of them coming to my town (Baltimore, MD) and I only live 2 blocks from most of the proposed course. I would say I don't like street courses but if it is my street, hell yes! In my back yard, please!

StevenFV19 wrote: absoloutley nothing!

Naw, nothing. Oh.. except it represents the leading edge of automotive technology, Well, that and the performance thing.. corners @ 4G, brakes @ 5G, can run down the quarter mile side by side with a Pro Stocker, has the same horsepower as a NASCAR racer, but with less than half the weight, and can turn right as well as left.

Overall, pretty useless cars.

But the soap opera that comes with it is half the show.

They WERE the leading edge of technology, now they are restricting the rules to try and save money, which is not what F1 is all about. Want to save money? Run a lower class car and STFU.

Of course if the FIA were serious about saving money, they would lower the fees they charge tracks to hold events.

Formula 1 was always about gonzo rich folks spending cubic dollars to have fun and race each other (or hire people to race for them in their cars)

NYG95GA wrote:

StevenFV19 wrote: absoloutley nothing!

Naw, nothing. Oh.. except it represents the leading edge of automotive technology, Well, that and the performance thing.. corners @ 4G, brakes @ 5G, can run down the quarter mile side by side with a Pro Stocker, has the same horsepower as a NASCAR racer, but with less than half the weight, and can turn right as well as left. Overall, pretty useless cars. But the soap opera that comes with it is half the show.

All that is true but if they cap the budgets it will be less so. The performance is there that is for sure. Unlike the rev-limited Indy cars. But I never liked grooved tires and now - skinny rear wings.

NYG95GA wrote:

StevenFV19 wrote: absoloutley nothing!

Naw, nothing. Oh.. except it represents the leading edge of automotive technology, Well, that and the performance thing.. corners @ 4G, brakes @ 5G, can run down the quarter mile side by side with a Pro Stocker, has the same horsepower as a NASCAR racer, but with less than half the weight, and can turn right as well as left. Overall, pretty useless cars. But the soap opera that comes with it is half the show.

I want to see an F1 car pull a sub 1.0-second 60 foot time. The record for NHRA Pro Stock ET is 6.528 and the mph record is 212.03. I have no doubt an F1 racer can handle the speed but there's no chance it can match Pro Stock acceleration.

But I never liked grooved tires and now - skinny rear wings.

just remember that the "skinny rear wings" do actually promote passing... as compared to the wider wings of yesteryear

Forward acceleration

The 2006 F1 cars have a power-to-weight ratio of 1,250 hp (932 kW)/tonne (0.9 kW/kg). Theoretically this would allow the car to reach 100 km/h (62 mph) in less than 1 second. However the massive power cannot be converted to motion at low speeds due to traction loss, and the usual figure is 2 seconds to reach 100 km/h (62 mph). After about 130 km/h (81 mph) traction loss is minimal due to the combined effect of the car moving faster and the downforce, hence the car continues accelerating at a very high rate. The figures are (for the 2006 Renault R26):

0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): 1.7 seconds
0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 3.8 seconds
0 to 300 km/h (186 mph): 8.6 seconds*

* Figures may alter slightly depending on the aerodynamic setup.

The acceleration figure is usually 1.45 g (14.25 m/s²) up to 200 km/h (124 mph), which means the driver is pushed back in the seat with 1.45 times his bodyweight.

Will wrote:

NYG95GA wrote:

StevenFV19 wrote: absoloutley nothing!

Naw, nothing. Oh.. except it represents the leading edge of automotive technology, Well, that and the performance thing.. corners @ 4G, brakes @ 5G, can run down the quarter mile side by side with a Pro Stocker, has the same horsepower as a NASCAR racer, but with less than half the weight, and can turn right as well as left. Overall, pretty useless cars. But the soap opera that comes with it is half the show.

I want to see an F1 car pull a sub 1.0-second 60 foot time. The record for NHRA Pro Stock ET is 6.528 and the mph record is 212.03. I have no doubt an F1 racer can handle the speed but there's no chance it can match Pro Stock acceleration.

Do the Pro Stocks still have the fastest 60 ft. times in drag racing?